>
> Papias IMHO does talk about Q. He says that Matthew wrote a gospel in Aramaic
> and that Luke translated it into Greek.
He does say that Matthew composed the "logia" of the Lord in the "Hebrew
dialect", but in the extant sayings he says nothing regarding Luke, much
less of a Lukan translation of Matthew. He does say that others
interpreted as best they could, which may be understood as translation,
but not necessarily.
I think that this was Q.
Others have certainly thought that perhaps the logia here referred tois
Q or Q-like, but of course there are just as strong arguments against it.
Later
> someone besides Matthew wrote the gospel that bears his name.
Proof or Argumentation?
It is obvious
> that there is a literary relationship between Matt and Luke. Whether this is
> Q or whether this is an abridgement of one gospel writer by another will
> never be proven.
Ah, there's the rub, as the good Bard wrote. Part of my problem is that
it is no longer obvious to me that such a literary relationship exists.
Consider: 3412 Greek words of Matthew are shared in all the pericope's
and sayings which Luke also has, 18% of Matthew. And the other way 17%
of Luke appears in Matthew, 3320 Greek words. And in any given pericope,
any given saying there is great similarity, yet at the same time great
differences as well in wording. This is just too great a series of
differences for me to accept dependence on the same document, which is
why the "obvious" relationship has been recast by some into use of
different editions of Q, different documents altogether, and the very
minority opinion-peripheral to use Sterling's term, is independance. The
nature of the relationship isn't so obvious, which is why it is still
under discussion and refinement.
Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library
lswain@billings.lib.mt.us